In the Malappuram Hooch Tragedy case, the High Court rejected the bail application of the 19th accused, Junaid Ali, in a conspiracy to sell spurious toddy laced with methanol, holding that the gravity of offences and risk to witnesses override the liberty claim.
The bail application was dismissed; the petitioner is not released on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2102 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.481/CR/HHW/III/KKD/10/2010 OF CBCID KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.19: -------------------------------------JUNAID ALI @ JUNAIS, AGED 25, S/O.ALIKUTTY, PULICKAL HOUSE, KOOKKAMPARAMB NADUVATTOM, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP.BY CBCID, KOZHIKODE.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Bail Application No.2102 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 1-04-2011
ORDER
In this petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 19th accused in Crime No. 481/CR/HHWIII/KKD/2010 of the Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 328,120 B , 471 and 201 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sections 57(a) and 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 10-09-2010 .
Bail Application No. 2102 of 2011 -:2:-
persons lost their eye-sight and 86 persons were hospitalised due to various problems after consuming the killer brew from the toddy shops at Vaniyambalam within the limits of Wandoor Police Station and from the toddy shops at Kuttippuram , Perassannur and Beeranchira within the limits of the Kuttippuram and Tirur Police Stations .
THE FACTUAL FLASHBACK
Bail Application No. 2102 of 2011 -:3:-
Nos. 291 to 295 and 297 of 2010 and the Tirur Police registered Crime Nos. 667 to 670 and 672 of 2010 for the aforementioned offences . Considering the seriousness of the case, the investigation of the cases was transferred to the Crime Branch Police which took over the investigation in all the above cases on 14-09-2010. During the course of investigation it was revealed that all the dead persons had consumed noxious toddy from the toddy shops situated at Kuttippuram, Beeranchira and Perassannur which were conducted by A1 (Dravyan) who was running the toddy shops at Kuttippuram and Perassannur where the licensees were A2 and A3. The licensees of the Beeranchira toddy shops are accused Nos. 4 to 7. Samples of the toddy kept for sale in the toddy shops were collected and sent for chemical analysis. The report of chemical analysis showed that the toddy contained Methyl Alcohol (Methanol) which is the poison used for denaturing rectified spirit. The noxious toddy was sold under the name “speed toddy” besides which pure tapped toddy was also sold. Hence, the persons responsible for the sale of “speed toddy” very well knew that it was toddy mixed with chemicals intended for enhancing the intoxicating strength of the liquor. What is revealed is a criminal conspiracy by A1 to A18 to make huge profits by selling spurious toddy instead of pure toddy and A1 along
Bail Application No. 2102 of 2011 -:4:-
with A16 to A18 had mixed methanol with toddy in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched between A1 and A18. 14 persons died after consuming illicit toddy from the toddy shops at Kuttippuram , Perassannur and Beeranchira within the limits of the Kuttippuram and Tirur Police Stations. 10 persons died after consuming the noxious toddy from the toddy shop at Vaniyambalam within the limits of the Wandoor Police Station. “Alcohol” has ruined several families. It is the filthy lucre which had impelled the accused persons to sell noxious toddy unmindful of the catastrophe which was in store for the poor consumers most of whom were tamilians.
Bail Application No. 2102 of 2011 -:5:-
accused are sufficient to infer that they may not hesitate to influence or intimidate the witnesses and attempt to tamper with the evidence . (Vide Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan -(2004) 7SCC 528) . While liberty of the accused is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts, such protection cannot be absolute in all situations. There has to be a balance struck between the valuable right of liberty of the accused and the interest of the society in general. The individual interest of the accused will have to yield to the collective interest of the community at large which outweighs the personal liberty of the accused. (Masroor v. State of U.P. - (2009) 14 SCC 286 and Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtaqu Hasan Khan & Another - (1987) 2 SCC 684). It is well settled that the grant of bail to a co-accused (A6 & A13 in this case) is not a ground available to another accused to claim his release on bail as of right .
After evaluating the pros and cons, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
sj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the severity of the charges and the risk to witnesses.
Whether the passing of the charge-sheet precludes the grant of default bail.
Whether the incarceration period itself warrants bail in serious hit-and-run/toddy case involving multiple deaths.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh RanjanRelied on¶26
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
Masroor v. State of U.P.Relied on¶26
Masroor v. State of U.P. ((2009) 14 SCC 286) · Who else cites this
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtaqu Hasan KhanRelied on¶26
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtaqu Hasan Khan & Another (1987) 2 SCC 684 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Junaid Ali @ Juna
State of Kerala
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
